Shannon Ratlif

February 16, 2011

Ad Analysis RD2
LA 101H, Mateer

Agassi vs. Sampras: Who Do You Choose?

When taking a quick glance at the statistics of the championships of the 2000 Tennis

Masters Series, it becomes apparent that the year belonged to two players, not one. In 2000, the

rivalry between Andre Agassi and Pete Sampras in the tennis world was intense; they were the

top players constantly battling each other in showdown matches of epic proportions. Agassi’s

winning span was ending as Sampras’ star was rising in the tennis world when Nike picked up

Sampras for endorsement along with his arch-nemesis, Agassi. In Nike’s 2000 television

commercial featuring Andre Agassi and Pete Sampras, the company seizes kairos by capitalizing

on the tennis market and in an entertaining twist, challenging viewers to select their favored

player.

Nike’s endorsement of both players creates a much larger audience rather than alienating

a Sampras fan over an Agassi endorsement, or vice versa. Andre Agassi, the bald tennis rebel

who once played the courts in a bandana and blue jean shorts, was depicted as the dangerous

man next to the boy-next-door Sampras. Where Agassi was loud and flamboyant on some

occasions, Sampras was more reserved and kept his thoughts closer to his mind than his mouth.

Andre Agassi was the man that women fantasized about running away with, their arms around

his waist while they rode his motorcycle off into the sunset. Pete Sampras was the man who

could be easily seated across from your father at the dinner table, having polite and relaxed

conversation as your mother winks at you from across the bread rolls, approving of your

excellent choice for a suitor. This comparison made is the classic argument of good vs. evil, of

right vs. wrong, but feels so right. It is the same comparison made today between Roger Federer

and Rafael Nadal, though the traits for each player are different from the Agassi-Sampras rivalry.
 Ratliff 2

This was the rhetorical situation of 2000 in the tennis world and who better to capitalize on it

than Nike, the ultimate supporter of bold athletic statements, of taking a stand.

Nike’s analysis of the rhetorical situation occurring at the moment is the perfect example

of kairos, or seizing the rhetorical moment and capitalizing on it. Nike’s endorsement, however,

is unique in that it takes the two tennis stars of the greatest rivalry and pits them against each

other in a series of quick, 30-second commercials that have no mention of Nike in them, with the

exception of the Nike checkmark at the end. Using both Agassi and Sampras as spokespersons,

Nike develops its logos by appearing to the viewer to present an unobstructed, unbiased view.

Nike is not trying to convey a favorite spokesperson, and consequently tennis player, but is

acknowledging the greatness of these two men and is proud to represent both of them, even if

that means including them in the same commercial. Therefore, Nike appears logical and

maintains that their product is for players of every kind: the dark horse, the rebel, the quiet man,

the boy-next-door type. This type of dual endorsement is also an excellent way to sell

merchandise because since both of the two greatest tennis players in the world are supporting

Nike’s gear, then it must be good enough for the everyman. Nike’s play on the “everyman”

approach in this commercial makes the products and the appeal for Nike even more reliable to

consumers of every background.

Seeing the commercial for the first time, the viewer is likely to be dazzled from every

angle, to through the speed at which the commercial flies to the quick words being spoken by

Agassi and Sampras in a type of friendly banter. Upon a second viewing, the genius of the

commercial shines through: both men are being asked the same question in a this-or-that style

and are always giving opposite answers. These opposite answers highlight the differences in

Agassi’s and Sampras’ personalities and because they are the polar opposite, they, in effect,
 Ratliff 3

challenge the viewer to decide which player they favor. This choice is inevitable because a

person favors either sour or sweet, or boxers or briefs. By drawing on popular culture references

of the time, such as Pearl Jam and Santana, and the Coyote or the Roadrunner, the commercial is

relevant to the time period. This highlights Nike’s use of ethos by drawing on not only images of

the time, but on the players’ answers proving that they are just like everyone else, the everyman.

The character of Nike is developed by showcasing both players and asking them the same

mundane questions that, generally, would not matter on any other occasion except in the act of

making a friend.

Hand in hand with Nike’s use of ethos is its play on pathos. The two men are answering

trivial questions that a person would ask a potential friend to gage their interests. Either the

viewer is an Agassi man or a Sampras man based on the answers. Nike also asks the men

difficult questions to answer, shown by Agassi’s emotional “I don’t know” answer followed by

Sampras’ personal “The death of my coach.” The question asked was probably along the lines of

“What was your saddest moment in tennis?” These answers make both players seem like friends,

the next-door neighbors talked to over the fence while barbecuing, the ones invited over for

dinner.

The tactics of the commercial, such as the quick screenshots of up-close and personal

face views to the relaxed positions of each player, challenges the audience to choose which

player is their favorite based on the personal and completely opposite answers given by Agassi

and Sampras. The black and white, face-framing shots that flicker across the screen every two

seconds, accompanied by an answer, to the full body color shots that also flash across the screen

in the same amount of time provide a visual maze for your eye to follow and for your mind to

take in. Nike has created a commercial with no mention of its product with the exception of the
 Ratliff 4

ending checkmark, the only focus being on Sampras and Agassi themselves that resonates highly

with the audience, allowing them to decide which player is their favorite based on who they

relate to more as a person.

The effectiveness of Nike’s commercial lays in the use of kairos it employs by featuring

both Sampras and Agassi during the same time they were in a highly competitive race for the

number-one slot in the tennis rank. The commercial also capitalizes highly on the idea of Agassi

as the ‘bad boy’ and Sampas as the ‘boy-next-door,’ which brings the male commercial to a

female level, allowing women to choose their favored suitor much like men would choose either

player for a friend. The use of both players gives Nike its logos and also its ethos by proving not

only its character and unbiased ideas, but by showing the character of Sampras and Agassi

through their answers provided to unheard questions. Pathos is also explored in their personal

answers where the techniques Nike uses in the commercial shines through as being raw and

emotive, realistic to the everyman ideal.

 Ratliff 5

Works Cited

1. "Tennis - ATP World Tour - Results Archive." Tennis - ATP World Tour - Home. Web.

16 Feb. 2011. <http://www.atpworldtour.com/Scores/Archive-Event-Calendar.aspx?

t=1&y=2000>.

2. "YouTube - Agassi---Nike Advertising with Sampras." YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

Web. 16 Feb. 2011. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pDAWU5Va34>.

3. "2000 ATP/ITF Calendar and Results." Steve G Tennis | ATP Rankings and Results

Page . Web. 16 Feb. 2011. <http://stevegtennis.com/00atpres.htm>.